This exploration of the syntax-semantics interface is concerned with negative indefinites like English ‘nobody’, ‘nothing’, etc. and their counterparts in other languages. A cross-linguistically ...
More

This exploration of the syntax-semantics interface is concerned with negative indefinites like English ‘nobody’, ‘nothing’, etc. and their counterparts in other languages. A cross-linguistically unified analysis is proposed and applied to several languages. While negative indefinites are standardly assumed to be semantically negative quantifiers, this work argues for a different analysis. It is motivated by three phenomena, which negative indefinites give rise to in different languages and which are unexpected under the negative quantifier analysis. The first, negative concord, has been widely discussed in both semantic and syntactic literature. The fact that in many languages negative indefinites can co-occur with other seemingly negative elements without contributing a negation to the semantics motivates the assumption that these expressions are not inherently negative. Following recent work on negative concord, an analysis is elaborated that is based on the assumption that negative indefinites are semantically non-negative and must be licensed by a — possibly covert — negation. This analysis explains the behaviour of negative indefinites in a number of languages. In a next step, this analysis is extended to languages that do not exhibit negative concord. Motivation for this comes from the fact that even in non-negative concord languages, the negative quantifier analysis cannot account for the semantics of negative indefinites. Crucial evidence comes from the existence of split readings, in which another operator takes scope in between the negative and the indefinite meaning component. Moreover, in many languages the distribution of negative indefinites is subject to syntactic restrictions. It is shown how this follows from the proposed analysis and independently motivated syntactic properties.Less

Negative Indefinites

Doris Penka

Published in print: 2010-12-01

This exploration of the syntax-semantics interface is concerned with negative indefinites like English ‘nobody’, ‘nothing’, etc. and their counterparts in other languages. A cross-linguistically unified analysis is proposed and applied to several languages. While negative indefinites are standardly assumed to be semantically negative quantifiers, this work argues for a different analysis. It is motivated by three phenomena, which negative indefinites give rise to in different languages and which are unexpected under the negative quantifier analysis. The first, negative concord, has been widely discussed in both semantic and syntactic literature. The fact that in many languages negative indefinites can co-occur with other seemingly negative elements without contributing a negation to the semantics motivates the assumption that these expressions are not inherently negative. Following recent work on negative concord, an analysis is elaborated that is based on the assumption that negative indefinites are semantically non-negative and must be licensed by a — possibly covert — negation. This analysis explains the behaviour of negative indefinites in a number of languages. In a next step, this analysis is extended to languages that do not exhibit negative concord. Motivation for this comes from the fact that even in non-negative concord languages, the negative quantifier analysis cannot account for the semantics of negative indefinites. Crucial evidence comes from the existence of split readings, in which another operator takes scope in between the negative and the indefinite meaning component. Moreover, in many languages the distribution of negative indefinites is subject to syntactic restrictions. It is shown how this follows from the proposed analysis and independently motivated syntactic properties.

In this chapter, the analysis according to which negative indefinites have to be licensed by sentential negation is extended to languages without negative concord. This step is motivated by a ...
More

In this chapter, the analysis according to which negative indefinites have to be licensed by sentential negation is extended to languages without negative concord. This step is motivated by a phenomenon negative indefinites in German exhibit: In certain contexts, negative indefinites yield a split reading, where another operator takes scope in between the negative and the indefinite meaning component. This indicates that negation is not interpreted where it is marked morpho-syntactically. An analysis of negative indefinites in German is spelled out, including a detailed investigation of scope splitting in certain constructions (intensional verbs, predicative positions, topic-focus accent). This analysis is compared to other approaches to scope splitting proposed in the literature.Less

Split Scope of NIs in German

Doris Penka

Published in print: 2010-12-01

In this chapter, the analysis according to which negative indefinites have to be licensed by sentential negation is extended to languages without negative concord. This step is motivated by a phenomenon negative indefinites in German exhibit: In certain contexts, negative indefinites yield a split reading, where another operator takes scope in between the negative and the indefinite meaning component. This indicates that negation is not interpreted where it is marked morpho-syntactically. An analysis of negative indefinites in German is spelled out, including a detailed investigation of scope splitting in certain constructions (intensional verbs, predicative positions, topic-focus accent). This analysis is compared to other approaches to scope splitting proposed in the literature.

This chapter lays the ground for the following discussion by introducing central concepts such as negative indefinites, sentential negation, and constituent negation. It also provides background on ...
More

This chapter lays the ground for the following discussion by introducing central concepts such as negative indefinites, sentential negation, and constituent negation. It also provides background on the syntactic and semantic framework in which the book is couched, and gives an outline of the following chapters.Less

Introduction

Doris Penka

Published in print: 2010-12-01

This chapter lays the ground for the following discussion by introducing central concepts such as negative indefinites, sentential negation, and constituent negation. It also provides background on the syntactic and semantic framework in which the book is couched, and gives an outline of the following chapters.

This chapter discusses the Composed Quantifier Argument, a widely accepted and apparently devastating argument against a syntactic view of Classical NEG Raising (NR), and argues that it is faulty and ...
More

This chapter discusses the Composed Quantifier Argument, a widely accepted and apparently devastating argument against a syntactic view of Classical NEG Raising (NR), and argues that it is faulty and in no way conclusive in view of the general framework for understanding negation (NEG). The Composed Quantifier Argument depends on the existence of a variant of the Classical NR phenomenon involving not an overt main clause auxiliary instance of NEG (for example, in “Graham did not expect that she would arrive until Saturday”), but instead one or another negative quantifier phrase. The chapter considers examples, each of which has a Classical NR predicate in the main clause and a strict negative polarity item (NPI) in the embedded clause, but none of which manifests a matrix clause containing an overt NEG that could have raised from its embedded complement clause. It also shows that one can avoid wrong meanings and obtain the right ones without lexicalization of raised NEGs, and that Horn clauses licensed in composed quantifier structures strongly supports the syntactic view of Classical NR.Less

The Composed Quantifier Argument

Chris CollinsPaul M. Postal

Published in print: 2014-06-30

This chapter discusses the Composed Quantifier Argument, a widely accepted and apparently devastating argument against a syntactic view of Classical NEG Raising (NR), and argues that it is faulty and in no way conclusive in view of the general framework for understanding negation (NEG). The Composed Quantifier Argument depends on the existence of a variant of the Classical NR phenomenon involving not an overt main clause auxiliary instance of NEG (for example, in “Graham did not expect that she would arrive until Saturday”), but instead one or another negative quantifier phrase. The chapter considers examples, each of which has a Classical NR predicate in the main clause and a strict negative polarity item (NPI) in the embedded clause, but none of which manifests a matrix clause containing an overt NEG that could have raised from its embedded complement clause. It also shows that one can avoid wrong meanings and obtain the right ones without lexicalization of raised NEGs, and that Horn clauses licensed in composed quantifier structures strongly supports the syntactic view of Classical NR.

In the Scandinavian languages, negative indefinites show a restriction in their distribution to the effect that they have to be adjacent to a position a negative marker can occupy. This chapter shows ...
More

In the Scandinavian languages, negative indefinites show a restriction in their distribution to the effect that they have to be adjacent to a position a negative marker can occupy. This chapter shows that this distributional restriction follows from the analysis proposed for German in Chapter 3. It discusses other approaches to negative indefinites in Scandinavian and shows that these are insufficient in the light of split readings that also arise in these languages. The chapter concludes with remarks on the resulting cross-linguistic analysis of negative indefinites and its possible extension to other languages, in particular English.Less

Distributional Restrictions in Scandinavian

Doris Penka

Published in print: 2010-12-01

In the Scandinavian languages, negative indefinites show a restriction in their distribution to the effect that they have to be adjacent to a position a negative marker can occupy. This chapter shows that this distributional restriction follows from the analysis proposed for German in Chapter 3. It discusses other approaches to negative indefinites in Scandinavian and shows that these are insufficient in the light of split readings that also arise in these languages. The chapter concludes with remarks on the resulting cross-linguistic analysis of negative indefinites and its possible extension to other languages, in particular English.

This book considers examples such as the one below on the interpretation where Nancy thinks that this course is not interesting: Nancy doesn't think this course is interesting. It argues that such ...
More

This book considers examples such as the one below on the interpretation where Nancy thinks that this course is not interesting: Nancy doesn't think this course is interesting. It argues that such examples instantiate a kind of syntactic raising known as Classical NEG Raising (NR). This involves the raising of a NEG (negation) from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. The book develops three main arguments to support its claim. First, it shows that Classical NR obeys island constraints. Second, it documents that a syntactic raising analysis predicts both the grammaticality and particular properties of what it terms Horn clauses (named for Laurence Horn, who discovered them). Finally, it argues that the properties of certain parenthetical structures strongly support the syntactic character of Classical NR. The book also offers a detailed analysis of the main argument in the literature against a syntactic raising analysis (which it calls the Composed Quantifier Argument). It shows that the facts appealed to in this argument not only fail to conflict with their approach but actually support a syntactic view. The book also touches on a variety of related topics, including the syntax of negative polarity items, the status of sequential negation, and the scope of negative quantifiers.Less

Classical NEG Raising : An Essay on the Syntax of Negation

Chris CollinsPaul M. Postal

Published in print: 2014-06-30

This book considers examples such as the one below on the interpretation where Nancy thinks that this course is not interesting: Nancy doesn't think this course is interesting. It argues that such examples instantiate a kind of syntactic raising known as Classical NEG Raising (NR). This involves the raising of a NEG (negation) from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. The book develops three main arguments to support its claim. First, it shows that Classical NR obeys island constraints. Second, it documents that a syntactic raising analysis predicts both the grammaticality and particular properties of what it terms Horn clauses (named for Laurence Horn, who discovered them). Finally, it argues that the properties of certain parenthetical structures strongly support the syntactic character of Classical NR. The book also offers a detailed analysis of the main argument in the literature against a syntactic raising analysis (which it calls the Composed Quantifier Argument). It shows that the facts appealed to in this argument not only fail to conflict with their approach but actually support a syntactic view. The book also touches on a variety of related topics, including the syntax of negative polarity items, the status of sequential negation, and the scope of negative quantifiers.

This chapter analyzes the Negative Movement (NM) pattern in Norwegian, where, as in other Scandinavian languages, objects containing a negative quantifier (e.g., no books) must appear to the left of ...
More

This chapter analyzes the Negative Movement (NM) pattern in Norwegian, where, as in other Scandinavian languages, objects containing a negative quantifier (e.g., no books) must appear to the left of the verb, albeit with a slightly archaic or marginal flavour. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 15.2 discusses Complement-Verbmain (XV) and Verbmain-Complement (VX) order, and gives a presentation of word order patterns in Early Norwegian that resemble scrambling, quantifier movement (QM), and NM in modern Germanic languages. These three types of XV word order are described in terms of semantically-driven movement regulated by information structure. QM and NM in nineteenth-century and contemporary Modern Norwegian is also discussed. Section 15.3 discusses NM as a remnant of these once-productive movement operations, framing the discussion in terms of Virus Theory. It examines four characteristics shared by grammatical viruses and point out the similarities between NM and other prestige constructions in Modern Standard English. The chapter concludes with a discussion of Virus Theory as a tool for the description and analysis of data on syntactic variation and change.Less

Negative movement in the history of Norwegian: the evolution of a grammatical virus

John Sundquist

Published in print: 2011-11-24

This chapter analyzes the Negative Movement (NM) pattern in Norwegian, where, as in other Scandinavian languages, objects containing a negative quantifier (e.g., no books) must appear to the left of the verb, albeit with a slightly archaic or marginal flavour. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 15.2 discusses Complement-Verbmain (XV) and Verbmain-Complement (VX) order, and gives a presentation of word order patterns in Early Norwegian that resemble scrambling, quantifier movement (QM), and NM in modern Germanic languages. These three types of XV word order are described in terms of semantically-driven movement regulated by information structure. QM and NM in nineteenth-century and contemporary Modern Norwegian is also discussed. Section 15.3 discusses NM as a remnant of these once-productive movement operations, framing the discussion in terms of Virus Theory. It examines four characteristics shared by grammatical viruses and point out the similarities between NM and other prestige constructions in Modern Standard English. The chapter concludes with a discussion of Virus Theory as a tool for the description and analysis of data on syntactic variation and change.

This chapter considers the distribution of VO and OV orders in Old Italian when the object is represented by a quantified constituent. The investigation takes into consideration cases of VO/OV ...
More

This chapter considers the distribution of VO and OV orders in Old Italian when the object is represented by a quantified constituent. The investigation takes into consideration cases of VO/OV variation with complex analytic verb forms where V is the past participle and O contains a universal or a negative quantifier. It is shown that while OV with non-quantified DPs and complex QPs is optional, universal bare quantifiers always precede the past participle. It is proposed that bare quantifiers undergo obligatory movement to a dedicated position, which is a function of their internal structure. Moreover, it is argued that the modern stage of the language has preserved the movement of the quantifier, but this is not always visible because of a change in the movement properties of the verb: in generalized verb-second Old Italian the past participle remains trapped inside the vP left-periphery while it raises higher in Modern Italian.Less

The distribution of quantifiers in Old and Modern Italian : Everything or nothing

Jacopo GarzonioCecilia Poletto

Published in print: 2018-06-21

This chapter considers the distribution of VO and OV orders in Old Italian when the object is represented by a quantified constituent. The investigation takes into consideration cases of VO/OV variation with complex analytic verb forms where V is the past participle and O contains a universal or a negative quantifier. It is shown that while OV with non-quantified DPs and complex QPs is optional, universal bare quantifiers always precede the past participle. It is proposed that bare quantifiers undergo obligatory movement to a dedicated position, which is a function of their internal structure. Moreover, it is argued that the modern stage of the language has preserved the movement of the quantifier, but this is not always visible because of a change in the movement properties of the verb: in generalized verb-second Old Italian the past participle remains trapped inside the vP left-periphery while it raises higher in Modern Italian.

This chapter addresses the commonly suggested semantic condition that a strict negative polarity item (NPI) occurs in the scope of an antiadditive operator, arguing that it is not sufficient to ...
More

This chapter addresses the commonly suggested semantic condition that a strict negative polarity item (NPI) occurs in the scope of an antiadditive operator, arguing that it is not sufficient to account for the distribution of strict NPIs. It first considers a context that is antiadditive (hence decreasing) but nonetheless does not allow strict NPIs by presenting the following cases: I didn't find a person who ate vegetables and I didn't find a person who ate green vegetables. The first sentence clearly entails the second, indicating that the context “I didn't find a person who ate__” is decreasing. A similar deduction goes through if the subject of the main clause is a negative quantifier determiner phrase. The chapter then gives more examples suggesting that the distribution of strict NPIs cannot be accounted for simply in terms of a requirement to appear in an antiadditive context. It also examines Gajewski's proposal, the main thrust of which is the development of a Bartsch-style approach to Classical NEG Raising (NR) that can account for the fact that strict NPIs are licensed in the complement of negated Classical NR predicates.Less

Strict NPIs and Locality

Chris CollinsPaul M. Postal

Published in print: 2014-06-30

This chapter addresses the commonly suggested semantic condition that a strict negative polarity item (NPI) occurs in the scope of an antiadditive operator, arguing that it is not sufficient to account for the distribution of strict NPIs. It first considers a context that is antiadditive (hence decreasing) but nonetheless does not allow strict NPIs by presenting the following cases: I didn't find a person who ate vegetables and I didn't find a person who ate green vegetables. The first sentence clearly entails the second, indicating that the context “I didn't find a person who ate__” is decreasing. A similar deduction goes through if the subject of the main clause is a negative quantifier determiner phrase. The chapter then gives more examples suggesting that the distribution of strict NPIs cannot be accounted for simply in terms of a requirement to appear in an antiadditive context. It also examines Gajewski's proposal, the main thrust of which is the development of a Bartsch-style approach to Classical NEG Raising (NR) that can account for the fact that strict NPIs are licensed in the complement of negated Classical NR predicates.